As the foremost researcher on the subject of eyewitness memory, Jean Loftus, has said, memory is not like a video where you can hit replay. It is a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. The stress of the event increases the number of missing pieces (although it focuses some pieces with tremendous clarity) and many things can fill in those missing pieces. When that happens, the eyewitness can come to truly believe the false memories.
"Factors such as viewing conditions, duress, elevated emotions, and biases influence the visual perception experience. Perceptual experiences are stored by a system of memory that is highly malleable and continuously evolving, neither retaining nor divulging content in an informational vacuum. As such, the fidelity of our memories to actual events may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding to storage and retrieval. Unknown to the individual, memories are forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and distorted."
From the NAS study: Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014)
Finding examples of this in the official narrative is more difficult because we do not have many records of eyewitness memories near the time of the events. We do know Bugliosi ‘over-interviewed’ witnesses according to any expert on the subject and that his process was statistically very likely to have influenced later recall during testimony. This is especially the case when it comes to Linda Kasabian.
Remember, Bugliosi knew the official narrative from Susan Atkins and knew more than Kasabian had witnessed, even if his source was unreliable. That, together with his multiple interviews, is a potentially dangerous combination when it comes to maintaining witness memory.
[Aside: For those who challenge the phrase ‘official narrative’ I offer this definition. The official narrative means the story of what happened that terrible night at Cielo Drive. Despite our disagreements about those events, the average person who has more than a passing knowledge of the crime could probably recite the official narrative for you. That story actually has its origin not in the trial testimony but in the Grand Jury testimony of Susan Atkins. That testimony is, no matter how much some would try to argue to the contrary (and some will), the “official narrative”.]
The Testimony
Q (Bugliosi). And did anything unusual happen after dinner that night?Q. How long after dinner was this?
A. Maybe an hour, or so.
Q. You may continue.
A. And there were people sitting out front, you know, on chairs or on the rocks, which was a usual thing after we eat, talking, whatever. I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Spahn's house.
MR.KANAREK: Your Honor, I object to what was stated on the grounds of hearsay.
THE COURT: Don't interrupt, sir.
A. He told me I needed a change of clothing, to get a change of clothing, a knife and my driver's license.
Q. He told you what?
A. He told me to get a change of clothing, a knife and my driver's license.
Q. Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on or to bring an additional change of clothing? [Emphasis added]
A. To bring an additional change of clothes.
MR.KANAREK: Compound, your Honor, and also ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. To bring an additional change of clothing?
A. Yes.
*****
A. Then Brenda came along, and Charlie was with her, or they were standing together in a group, and she gave me the driver's license. And Charlie told me to go with Tex and to do what Tex told me to do.
____
The part I left out is testimony by Ms. Kasabian describing her efforts to first find her driver’s license and then her effort to find a knife, finally receiving a knife from “Larry”.
This is arguably Linda Kasabian's most important testimony, legally. It likely did more to convict Charles Manson, legally, then anything else she said. That said, I tend to agree with Ed Sanders that when she later testified regarding the murder of Wojciech Frykowski every defendant in that courtroom walked into the gas chamber and nothing was going to alter that outcome.
Bugliosi is seeking to accomplish two things with this testimony. The obvious one is connecting Manson directly to initiating the crime. Manson is orchestrating the events and demonstrating premeditation. This is also evidence of Manson’s ‘agreement’ to participate in the conspiracy to commit murder. Other witnesses would more solidly make him the author of that conspiracy, although Kasabian’s testimony regarding “now is the time for Helter Skelter” certainly helped.
Given the events of the second night, which convict Manson regardless of anything that happened the first night, one could ask why this was so important to Bugliosi? To answer that all you need to do is a search on Rosemary and Leno LaBianca before and during the trial on Newspapers.com. Then do the same search on Sharon Tate.
The trial was the “Tate” trial. The murders were the “Tate” murders. She was the celebrity, a budding movie star and sex symbol. It was the deaths at Cielo Drive that scared the public and made the headlines.
Perhaps more importantly, from Bugliosi’s perspective, he had no eyewitness to the murders the second night. But as to Cielo Drive he had an eyewitness who saw Watson commit two murders and saw Krenwinkel attempting to commit murder and who placed Atkins in the middle of the bloodbath. She had them wielding the knives they were ordered to obtain and she had them changing their cloths. Manson ordered it. They did it.
Bugliosi wanted to tie Manson directly to those events and Kasabian very effectively does that, right there.
The second goal of this testimony was to separate Kasabian from those bloodthirsty, remorseless, zombie killers in the courtroom. As he stated in his closing argument:
_____
“On that hot summer night of August 8th, 1969, Charles Manson, the Mephistophalean guru who raped and bastardized the minds of all those who gave themselves so totally to him, sent out from the fires of hell at Spahn Ranch three heartless, bloodthirsty robots and, unfortunately for him, one human being, the little hippie girl, Linda Kasabian.”
(Vincent Bugliosi’s Summation, Tate/LaBianca Trial, Vol. 169, Page 21,396, Cielodrive.com.)
_____
Bugliosi’s best lawyering in the case in my opinion was his ability to turn Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten into zombies who slavishly obeyed every command of Manson and wouldn’t change a light bulb without his permission and then turn around and convince the jury they were independent, free willed beings who killed for the joy of it in the next breath. Compare his success to the subsequent mistrial in Leslie Van Houten’s case where this same tactic almost backfired on the prosecution.
Separating Kasabian from Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten is critical to Bugliosi’s case. He does not need the jury to like or embrace Kasabian but he certainly doesn’t want them to view her in the same light. He wants her present at the scene but not participating and he wants her separated from them physically, emotionally and most importantly by motivation.
What we learn from this testimony is that Charles Manson gave the specific orders that triggered the murders. These were:
Get a change of clothing (covering up the crime)
Get a knife (the instrument of murder)
Get your driver’s license (the 'separating' fact) and
Go with Tex and do whatever he says
The first two show premeditation. The third separates Kasabian from the other three by providing a ‘technical’ reason for her presence. The fourth allows Bugliosi to provide an explanation to the jury why Kasabian didn’t know what she was headed out to do that night, which, makes her less culpable.
[Aside: I’m not suggesting, by the way, that all of these things weren’t ‘real’ or weren’t said. I’m not saying they didn’t happen. From what we know, they did. For example, Kasabain did retreat to Steven Parent’s car thus physically separating herself from the rest. Depending on who you believe we know from her coconspirators that, except perhaps one or two times when she entered the house, she was missing in action when the crime was over.]
Manson told Kasabian to get her driver’s license, a knife, a change of clothing and go with “Tex” and do whatever he told her to do. That is what she did. But did he?
The Clothing Issue
The original source of Manson's instructions is not Linda Kasabian but the far from credible, Susan Atkins, in her Grand Jury testimony.
_____
Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Susan, on the date August the 8th, 1969, did Charlie Manson instruct you
and some other members of the Family to do anything?
A: I never recall getting any actual instructions from Charlie other than getting a change of clothing and a knife and was told to do exactly what Tex told me to do.
Q: So Charlie told you on August 8, 1969, to get a fresh change of clothing, get a knife, and do whatever Tex told you to do?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did Charlie indicate to you that the type of clothing you should take should be dark clothing?
A: He told me that the type of clothing I should wear should be dark clothing and the clothes that I would take along with me should be -- didn't matter, just a change of clothing, wear dark clothes.
Q: Did you, in fact, put on a pair -- or, a dark clothing outfit?
A: Yes, I did.
(Cielodrive.com. Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony (Kindle Locations 280-302). Kindle Edition.)
_____
One thing I noticed about these instructions is the degree to which they are nearly identical. Certainly, it is possible that Manson gave everyone the exact, same, instructions but, except for the driver’s license, they even occur in the same order: clothing, knife, Tex. To me that seems a little odd.
There is, however, one difference. Atkins’ story actually makes more sense unless we assume everyone sat around Spahn Ranch wearing black T-shirts and blue jeans. Kasabian is told to get a change of clothing. She chose a lavender top and a denim, mini skirt. But Atkins was actually told to change her cloths and put on dark clothing. Now it is possible that Kasabian was already wearing dark clothing. One might ask 'why?'
Bugliosi’s question, emphasized, above, suggests to me that he expected a different response, a response consistent with Atkins’ previous testimony. Maybe he even received a different response during his interviews. Maybe he went over it so many times with her that the answer surprised him especially if that interview started like this: "Now, Linda, we know from Sadie that Manson said......"
Bugliosi does a bit of exactly that in what few interviews we do have and that is precisely what shouldn't happen.
Bugliosi’s question, emphasized, above, suggests to me that he expected a different response, a response consistent with Atkins’ previous testimony. Maybe he even received a different response during his interviews. Maybe he went over it so many times with her that the answer surprised him especially if that interview started like this: "Now, Linda, we know from Sadie that Manson said......"
Bugliosi does a bit of exactly that in what few interviews we do have and that is precisely what shouldn't happen.
And naturally knowing what Atkins had previously said, he would be somewhat surprised by her answer.
Krenwinkel’s account of this event on at least three occasions differs from both Atkins and Kasabian.
_____
“I was in taking care of the children at the time at—when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie. I got into the car with Tex and it wasn’t but way late down the road somewhere that I asked Tex what we were going to do. And it was when we were—and for a long time he said nothing. And then eventually, and so we just grabbed whatever and drove.”
(Patricia Krenwinkel 1978 Parole Hearing, Cielodrive.com)
_____
“Inmate Krenwinkel: I participated because Mr. Manson came to the trailer where I was taking care of the children and told me to come out to come to the ranch. When I came up to the front of the ranch there was a car and Mr. Watson was there and Miss Atkins was there and Miss Kasabian was there and Mr. Manson told me to go with Mr. Watson and do whatever he said.”
(Patricia Krenwinkel, 2004 Parole Hearing, Cielodrive.com)
_____
INMATE KRENWINKEL: What happened was I was -- and most of the time, like I said, I was designated to take care of the children or do the cooking or whatever. I was more of a domestic --
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: -- assignments. And I was, I was in the trailer with the children when he came and got me out of the trailer and told me to go with Tex. First, he said go to the house and Lynne Fromme was there and she gave me dark clothing and a knife.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: And Manson said, go with Tex and there was Susan and myself and Linda Kasabian and Tex. And he told us to get into a car and go with Tex. And together he said –
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Let me ask you this, let me, let me stop you real quick, and then I'll let you continue. Let me ask you this, so when Susan, you said, gives you the dark clothing?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, Lynne.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Lynne. When Lynne gives you the dark clothing and gives you the knife.
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Of course you don't, you don't ask Charles Manson why is this happening?
INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, he wasn't even there, yeah.
(Patricia Krenwinkel 2016 Parole Hearing, Cielodrive.com)
_____
It appears from Krenwinkel’s testimony (some not quoted here) at her 2016 parole hearing that she, like Atkins, actually changed into dark clothing before she left Spahn Ranch. Krenwinkel is never told to get a knife or a change of cloths she is given these by Lynne Fromme. In fact, she is never told to get either a knife or a change of clothing in any of these accounts. And by her account all three women are present at the car when
Too me this version actually makes more sense than either of the other two accounts. Assuming Manson is up to his eyeballs in this thing why actually help commit the crime. Just put the wire cutters, rope and knives in the car (or better yet, have someone like Brenda or Squeaky or Clem do that) and just say the “go with Tex”, part.
That part, if alone, makes it much harder to convict Manson.
Too me this version actually makes more sense than either of the other two accounts. Assuming Manson is up to his eyeballs in this thing why actually help commit the crime. Just put the wire cutters, rope and knives in the car (or better yet, have someone like Brenda or Squeaky or Clem do that) and just say the “go with Tex”, part.
That part, if alone, makes it much harder to convict Manson.
The Driver’s License
This one has always intrigued me and I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove whether Kasabian actually had a driver’s license on August 8, 1969. Aside from her testimony everything else I have found indicates that she didn’t. Since I can't justify a trip to Milford, New Hampshire, I have this evidence.
Put aside for the moment the testimony that only those with a license were ‘allowed’ to drive the vehicles at Spahn and the fact that Kasabian didn’t drive that night, Watson did. The available evidence I can find does not corroborate the fact she had a driver’s license. Maybe the evidence is out there. Maybe it is in Sanders' shed to the 'tubs' in the LA, DA's archives but I have never seen it.
What I do know is that on or about May 7, 1969, while she was in New Hampshire, Ms. Kasabian was pulled over for a traffic violation. In addition to whatever ticket the officer wrote, she was also charged with “operating [a motor vehicle] without a valid license”.
In 1969 there were two driver’s license-related violations in her home state:
Driving a vehicle while not possessing a license and
Driving without a valid license.
The first one occurs when you get pulled over and the officer asks for your license and you realize it
is at home in your other pants. The second violation occurs when either you simply don’t have a license or it has expired or was suspended. The second was typically cited as “driving without a valid license” the first is cited as “license not in possession” or “failure to produce”.
On May 7, 1969 Ms. Kasabian did not have a valid driver’s license. Period. It is, of course, possible the article listed the wrong offense, although I doubt that. It is also possible that Kasabian simply went out and renewed her license or somehow fixed the problem before she left for California but if Kasabian committed some other violation at the time she was cited for driving without a valid license she would not be eligible to renew her license for one year under New Hampshire law. That, of course, would mean she didn't have a valid driver's license on August 8, 1969.
It is highly unlikely Ms. Kasabian was pulled over for not having a valid driver’s license, the officer wouldn’t know that until he pulled her over.
_____
Mr.Kanarek: “Then I ask, your Honor, also I would like to have all of the make sheet of Linda Kasabian; that is, all the prosecution has in connection with her.
Mr. Stovitz: We furnished it to you, we will furnish it again.
Mr. Bugliosi: She has no make sheet. She just has a traffic ticket.
_____
This points out the incredible incompetence of defense counsel. If this is the "no valid license" ticket they apparently didn't recognize what Bugliosi was using the license to accomplish. If it is not, a phone call to a PD in Milford might have provided some decent cross examination.
The only other evidence of driver’s licenses I have seen (other than Manson's) comes from Lt. Earl Deemer’s list of “Family” members and associates and guess what?
Kasabian isn’t identified as having a driver’s license.
Other "Family" members and associates have their driver's licenses indicated. That would be the "DL" number and notice two are out of state.
Did she have a valid license? I have to lean heavily towards 'no' until something else surfaces or I take a trip to New Hampshire.
The Strange Case of the Tele-transporting Knives or Who Else Was at the Car That Night?
Kasabian’s testimony.
_____
Q (Bugliosi): Were there any knives or guns in the car, Linda?
Q: How many knives and how many guns?
A: There were 3 knives and one gun.
Q: Where was the gun in the car?
A: It was in the glove compartment.
Q: What about the 3 knives?
A: They were on the front seat. I was to ---
Q: Okay. Check this.
_____
At this point Bugliosi cuts off Kasabian’s explanation. But what follows is testimony that she was to throw the knives out the window if they were pulled over on the way to Cielo Drive, which is precisely what she was about to say.
Anyone notice the problem?
Spoiler: when Kasabian got into the car the knives were already in the car on the front seat. But how did they get there since each person was supposedly told to get a knife and would, then, logically have one in their possession, not on the front seat?
It seems to me that one of two things happened.
One possibility is that someone, unidentified, gathered all the knives and put them in the car while Manson or someone discussed things with the group or….
Wait, that discussion never happened. Manson’s only appearance at the car is the “leave something witchy” stuff and Watson says nothing until they are well on the way, according to Kasabian but not Krenwinkel.
If there was, indeed, a discussion and a meeting together before they left and someone gathered the knives and put them in the such a meeting casts doubt on the whole “I didn’t know what we were going to do” bit as to all of them, including as to Kasabian who was apparently already wearing 'creepy-crawl' gear.
But that is not what Kasabian says, not even close. She says the knives were in the car on the front seat when she got in the car.
Or……. the knives were already in the car when Kasabian got in the car, like she said. That, of
course, means that a lot of what she said about the lead up to that moment may not be completely accurate.
Memories are impacted by stress and filled in by many sources: other eyewitnesses, what someone reads, or how they are interviewed by law enforcement and district attorneys.
 |
| This is not Manson |
Memories are impacted by stress and filled in by many sources: other eyewitnesses, what someone reads, or how they are interviewed by law enforcement and district attorneys.
On one end of the spectrum all of this could just be the observations of someone who is paid to be paranoid, lawyers are paid to be paranoid. So, it may mean nothing.
On the other extreme end of the spectrum it may mean Manson never gave those instructions.
Frankly, I never understood why he would give those instructions. I could see him saying “go with Tex” as reported by Krenwinkel on three occasions, but the rest? Why?
It’s just something I noticed. It may mean nothing.
Pax Vobiscum
Dreath
111 comments:
In terms of separating Linda- I think the girls and Charlie did a better job at separating Linda than Bugs did. She comes off like a little sweetheart compared to the others. I believe that was much stronger in the eyes of the jury/judge than the license testimony. The jury got MONTHS of that behavior and made a lasting impression. Not taking away from the reasons you suggest- just stating the obvious non-legal “evidence” that the girls and Charlie presented to the jury on a daily basis for the duration of the trial.
Regarding who else was at the car that night: is there any direct evidence that it may have been Lynne? I have not found anything suggesting Bugliosi pursued that avenue, but it raises an interesting question of who knew about an impending trip to "the house where Terry Melcher used to live".
Additionally, in the trip back to the ranch after Cielo, the killers stopped for gas at a filling station, ostensibly paying for the gas with money from Abigail Folger's purse. Has it been established where this filling station was, and if so, were employees there interviewed by LAPD or Bugliosi?
Who are those tall police women in the post pic that you see in most of pics where the girls are being escorted to and from court ? Anyone ID them and where they are now (DOA) ?
Looking for photos I recall which had 2 deputies names...
Never seen THIS photo from the girls on tthe corner crawling...I recognize Brenda, Lynette and Gypsy but, not sure who the other 2 are...anyone?
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/five-members-of-hippie-cult-leader-charles-mansons-so-news-photo/668419254
Off the top of my head, I can only recall Deputy Sheryl Endresen - later on...thwarted escape attempt in 1972
Doug said: " Never seen THIS photo from the girls on tthe corner crawling...I recognize Brenda, Lynette and Gypsy but, not sure who the other 2 are...anyone?"
The second one looks like Mary Brunner. Don't know the one in the middle/back.
AstroCreep said...
In terms of separating Linda- I think the girls and Charlie did a better job at separating Linda than Bugs did
Do you mean in general life at Spahn or during the trial ?
She comes off like a little sweetheart compared to the others
I think she comes off as someone repulsed by murder compared to the others.
Pax Vobiscum said...
The only other evidence of driver’s licenses I have seen (other than Manson's) comes from Lt. Earl Deemer’s list of “Family” members and associates and guess what?
Kasabian isn’t identified as having a driver’s license
Just out of interest, when did that list of Deemer's appear ? I notice that Tex is referred to as Charles Montgomery on it. It was after the police found out that his real name was Watson {right at the end of November} that they also were told what Linda's surname was so maybe at the time of Deemer's list, she wasn't known to him. Within a week of them finding out Watson's name, that list would be pretty much redundant.
Grim said: "Within a week of them finding out Watson's name, that list would be pretty much redundant."
Help me out Grim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'redundant'.
____
Kasabian's charge appearing in the paper is a reporter with the "District Court beat" simply reading the court docket at the end of the day and likely little else. It indicates her name as "Kasabian", not "Douin". That would be pretty conclusive: the invalid license was under the name "Kasabian".
Like I said, it doesn't mean she didn't fix it. It means on May 7, 1969 Linda Kasabian did not have a valid driver's license.
Oh, I don't know when Deemer's list appeared.
I'm so happy all of them were caught, convicted & taken off the streets!
Doug wrote :
Never seen THIS photo from the girls on the corner crawling...I recognize Brenda, Lynette and Gypsy but, not sure who the other 2 are...anyone?
L-R Pitman, Brunner, Fromme, Lutesinger, Share.....
Out of range of the camera lens in this picture is Sandy Good, leading the pack.
Repulsed by murder? More like got away with murder. ALL of them taken off the streets? Funny comment in light of them crawling on the street
Grim - Kasabian comes off as someone repulsed by murder???!! Whatever you’re smoking it’s good! As Dan says she was playing the sweet little part to get away with murder. Tellingly, once she had avoided the rap her behaviour/attitude as a witness at Watson’s trial was noticeably different - none of the miss sweet little innocent show at that one. And if she was so repulsed why did she join the gang on night two. I’m sure that the reason she fled the ranch later was self preservation from the law. She knew the game was up and It was only a matter of time. Then she took the lifeline as star witness after Atkins fluffed her lines. You’ve got to hand it to her though - she played a blinder.
Linda looked out for Linda. Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
Not to mention being in the meth business with her daughter "Lady Dangerous"
If she was so sickened by murder shed have refused to go on night #2, better yet shed have driven away from Cielo when she got back down the hill and got the nearest cop or found the nearest house a safe distance away and called police
David said...
Help me out Grim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'redundant'
Actually I'd misunderstood something. I originally meant that within a week of Watson's identity being known, all the perps were indicted so as the identities were known, Deemer's list didn't matter anymore. I was curious as to when he made the list but then I noticed Linda's details on it so it kind of answered my question.
Speculator said...
Kasabian comes off as someone repulsed by murder???!! Whatever you’re smoking it’s good! As Dan says she was playing the sweet little part to get away with murder
That's your particular bias speaking, Spec. Now, she may have been putting on a superb Oscar winning command performance, she may have been lying her blaggers off or she may indeed have been repulsed by what she had seen. But the issue I was addressing is how she comes across during that trial in comparison to the other three women an during it, she comes across as repulsed by murder in comparison to the other three women who never come across as being repulsed by what they are on trial for.
Tellingly, once she had avoided the rap her behaviour/attitude as a witness at Watson’s trial was noticeably different - none of the miss sweet little innocent show at that one
You say that but in reality, once Gary Fleischmann had made the deal with Aaron Stovitz and the DA's office, she was not going to be caught in any rap unless she didn't testify truthfully. That extended to 1978 and Leslie's third trial.
And yes, she was noticeably different at the Watson trial ~ why shouldn't she be ? She'd passed through the first storm. Tex had only 2 possible destinations resulting from his trial ~ a mental institution or the gas chamber. The pressure was off Linda to a large extent, at the Watson trial.
And a woman tripping out on acid for 4 years, stealing $5000 and screwing every guy on the ranch "except Larry" and a couple of women too....is hardly little miss innocent.
And if she was so repulsed why did she join the gang on night two
Fear. We can argue the toss on this. I've seen similar happen more times than I could count right now. People do things out of straightforward fear sometimes. Fear of peer pressure, fear of a slap, fear of what may be done to your kid or sibling, whatever the fear may be.
I’m sure that the reason she fled the ranch later was self preservation from the law
That assumes she knew the law were onto them.
She knew the game was up and It was only a matter of time
Well how come she did and no one else did ? Besides which, her running from the law doesn't in any way protect her.
Whatever you’re smoking it’s good!
In my saner moments it's called 'Fandangos in space !'
Whatever you’re smoking it’s good!
If you really believed that, you'd agree with what I said ! 😄
Grim I like your new photo. Has Colonel Scott found something to criticize about it yet?
If Charlie and the plotters of Helter Skelter were better organized they should have gotten some more people at the ranch some drivers licences. Just a bunch of disorganized slippies.
David, so you're saying one of the ways Bugliosi wanted to separate Kasabian from the others was to claim the main reason she went along was because she supposedly had a driver's license? And if she really didn't have a driver's license wouldn't that be taking a big big chance as an attorney?
Pax Vobiscum said...
Did she have a valid license? I have to lean heavily towards 'no' until something else surfaces or I take a trip to New Hampshire
If she did not have a valid licence at the time of the murders then Bugliosi took an almighty, ridiculous and frankly stupid risk that could derail the credibility of his main witness and thus his entire case. He's the one that speculates that it was because Linda had a valid licence that she was selected. It's not altogether a daft notion; the previous day, Charlie was ticketed in San Diego for having no valid licence. Maybe he wanted to make sure someone had one on this night. We've never known what happened to Pat's and Tex threw his away.
It's actually quite surprising how many times the licence comes up during the trial. On 28th July: pages 4909, 4982-4995, 4998, [pg 4983 she refers to “my driving licence and my identification”, clearly showing that she had other forms of ID]
On 29th July she mentions the DL again on LaBianca night.
On 31st July Fitzgerald asks her if she has a licence and in whose name it is [pg 5589]. He also asks if Tex has one and about collecting her own [5644].
On 3rd Aug with Fitzgerald, collecting the DL for LaBianca night comes up [pg5858-9]. Bugliosi and Stovitz mention her traffic ticket [5887].
On 12th Aug Bugliosi mentions her traffic violations in response to Hughes saying the defence never got her rap sheet [7121].
On 13th Aug Linda mentions having a DL as being a reason why she went on most of the garbage runs [7462].
On 14th Aug Stovitz speaks of her arrest for not answering a traffic ticket and calls it a traffic offence [7540].
On 18th Aug Linda mentions Charlie asking her to get her licence on the 2nd night [7907, 7911, 7917].
On 20th Aug Bugliosi asks John Swartz if he has a pink slip for his 2nd car {a 62 Ford} and asks him to produce it ~ showing how easy it would be to check up on these kind of things [8318, 8319].
On 22nd Dec Bugliosi mentions it in his argument [18822, 18927, 18933]
On 28th Dec Fitzgerald mentions it in his argument [19333]
29th Dec Fitzgerald mentions it in his argument re: Brenda giving Linda the licence [19520].
On 30th Dec Kanarek uses it in his argument re: conspiracy and Brenda [19622].
On 12th Jan '71 Max Keith uses it in his argument re: Linda’s testimony re: Leslie [20802].
On 13th Jan Bugliosi uses it in his summing up, about Linda getting it from Brenda and challenging the defence as to why they didn’t call Brenda to rebut it if it wasn’t true. [20925 + 6] He also speculates on why Manson chose Linda, citing the licence [20964+5] and how on both nights, if Charlie or Tex weren’t driving, out of all the people in either troupe, only Linda drove.
On 14th Jan Bugliosi reiterates that Manson told Linda to get her licence [21115, 21118-9].
In Feb ’70 during the penalty phase, Leslie mentions to Max Keith that only Linda had a licence and she explains why it was necessary that she drive [24073].
Perhaps I'm not skeptical enough.
In Feb ’70
Make that February 1971.
Hey, someone in our midst was born in '71...........
Mr. Humphrat said...
I like your new photo
I do too, but I like the sound of the double bass even more. Mind you it gets me all bent out of shape to play it. It's actually painful !
LouGehrig said...
If she was so sickened by murder shed have refused to go on night #2
She did the next best thing under the circumstances ~ when directly ordered to murder, no "go with Tex and do what he tells you" this time, she did not. And actually swung it so the proposed victim did not even have to confront anyone. You once said you thought the book "The Myth Of Helter Skelter" was a good book and provided a lot of plausible explanations. Well, Susan Atkins in that book backs up the Ocean Front Walk episode.
Speaking of Ocean Front Walk, people have speculated in the past where the story of Sadie having a crap on the landing comes from. Well, it comes from Linda during her trial testimony. I was surprised to discover that ! That was a bit bitchy, I thought.
Speculator said...
She knew the game was up and It was only a matter of time
Thinking about this further, the opposite might be true ~ she had no idea at the time that the murders were not going to carry on. Getting the hell out of Spahn ensured one thing ~ she would not have to take part in any more murderous escapades and as importantly, wouldn't be ordered to. I think that tells you what you need to know unless you don't want to know it.
Grim,
I have a trial this week so likely can't respond in full until this weekend.
I will try.
'Yes' I think I have read all those references. "Argument" is not evidence, FYI.
Please do me a favor, limit the references to a "valid" driver's license.
You see, while I understand what you are saying, you don't understand how 'we' work. It is not a misstatement to say she had a driver's license, she did, so did all those others on Deemers' list and so did Manson.
I understand (and am willing to stand corrected) that the concept of a "valid" driver's license does not appear until the book, Helter Skelter. Bugliosi, brilliantly, allowed the jury to connect A to B and frankly the defense was at best, terrible.
She has to have a "valid driver's license" for her choosing to be based upon that, not "a license" and nothing I have found or you have offered (although I will go back and read those) says she had a "valid" driver's license on August 8, 1969 no matter how many times the license is mentioned.
This one:
"On 14th Aug Stovitz speaks of her arrest for not answering a traffic ticket and calls it a traffic offence [sic] [7540]."
If you are quoting the transcript this "arrest" never happened but she was arrested in Boston in 1966 or 67, which oddly doesn't appear anywhere, likely because the internet was still years away, and the Judge released her to her mother.
And under the law in her home state at the time she couldn't renew her license for a year if Stovitz' comment is accurately reported.
Mr. Humphrat said: "David, so you're saying one of the ways Bugliosi wanted to separate Kasabian from the others was to claim the main reason she went along was because she supposedly had a driver's license? And if she really didn't have a driver's license wouldn't that be taking a big big chance as an attorney?"
No, there are a lot of ways Bugliosi separates her, not just the license. The license provides a reason other than 'murder' for her to go. His efforts to separate her would require another post: She never enters the house. She passes behind the house while entrance is happening but miles an open window. She goes first to Parent's car (check that testimony) and then leaves. "Sadie make it stop" juxtaposed with "it is too late".
She was an astoundingly good witness.
No, it is not a big chance IMO.
We have come to assume Bugliosi presented evidence on the point of a valid driver's license. He didn't. He argued the point. It was incumbent on the defense to point it out if she didn't have one and they couldn't get to New Hampshire to find out (or they would have brought in her first husband who alleged she had physically and mentally abused him).
In a courtroom it's not my job to make your case.
"Miles" ="Misses"
Yana's and TWatson's relationship may have been a catalyst for the whole thing
And speed
“Inmate Krenwinkel: I participated because Mr. Manson came to the trailer where I was taking care of the children and told me to come out to come to the ranch. When I came up to the front of the ranch there was a car and Mr. Watson was there and Miss Atkins was there and Miss Kasabian was there and Mr. Manson told me to go with Mr. Watson and do whatever he said.”
What's with all the Mr.'s and Miss's? I don't think that is natural, Spahn Ranch speak.
I just wanted to comment on the testimony about Fromm handing dark clothes and knife to one of the murder party. She obviously knew what was about to happen. Maybe she should have been arrested and charged along with Charlie for premeditated murder?
Stillgrooving said: "I just wanted to comment on the testimony about Fromm handing dark clothes and knife to one of the murder party. She obviously knew what was about to happen. Maybe she should have been arrested and charged along with Charlie for premeditated murder?"
Technically IMHO she and anyone else knowing what was going to go down should have. Even Moorehouse as an instrument in attempted murder of cheeseburger lady. Problem is, proving it all in a court of law.
I am not known with US numbers,legal terms and so on ....The ,,DL" Driver License is clear to me . The FBI number though means that ?? Watson, De Carlo & Davis ,so only Males were under FBI surveilance ??
Hellz
The FBI # means that there is an FBI file on that person. It does not necessarily mean that the person was arrested only that their fingerprints have been submitted to the FBI which could have been for employment purposes or the military as well as having been arrested.
LASO# stands for Los Angeles Sheriff's Office. The actual number following is a case number.
LAPD# stands for Los Angeles Police Department, the number following is a case number.
CII# stands for California Information and Identification number. The person has been arrested in California and they have a file.
SS# is Social Security number.
On some there is a string of letters and numbers. On Danny DeCarlo's information that string is:
FPC 18 L/S 2/8 U/- OOI/IOI 15/-
This is a fingerprint identification code.
David said...
"Argument" is not evidence, FYI
Agreed. I was kind of surprised just how often the issue of a driving licence came up. Bugliosi moot it as his reason for Linda being selected and he always said it was purely speculation on his part. Interestingly, he gave Laurence Merrick another reason for her possible involvement {found in Robert Hendrickson's "Death to pigs"}.
limit the references to a "valid" driver's license.....I understand that the concept of a "valid" driver's license does not appear until the book, Helter Skelter
Could that not be because prior to the book, the validity of the licence is implicit in its mentioning ?
We have come to assume Bugliosi presented evidence on the point of a valid driver's license
Funnily enough, I've never particularly thought that. It was incumbent on the defence to demonstrate an invalid licence if that were actually the case, but I disagree with you when you say it wasn't a risky move on his part. I find it hard to believe he didn't check and if he then found that the licence was invalid, still went ahead and utilized it as part of his strategy. I don't see that as good lawyering, but lying. That's further emphasized by the fact that in his and Gentry's book, he does specify the licence to have been valid. That would mean that in his wonderful tome to the world he was deliberately lying.
It also makes one wonder why Manson, desiring someone with a licence that wouldn't call attention, would send someone with a licence that would do exactly that, if stopped.
StillGrooving said...
What's with all the Mr.'s and Miss's? I don't think that is natural, Spahn Ranch speak
It's not. It's Pat trying to put personal distance between her and the other perps so as to not sound like she's still fond of them or something to that effect. Showing any kind of connection was never a good thing for the "parolees." It played havoc with Bobby for years when his request in the early 70s to be housed with Charlie kept being brought up and it cemented the Beausoleil~Family connection in the minds of many, I'd wager.
It also avoids the whole Charles Manson Charles Watson cross-talk routine that those narratives always seem to fall victim to.
I don't get this whole valid driver's license argument you are making. If Linda had a license and it appeared on its face to be valid, how would she or anyone else know that it was in fact not valid. And if she and everyone else thought it was valid then that is all it takes for it to be the reason she was selected to go along that night. Until she is arrested and the license run how would anyone know it was invalid.
The Ocean Front walk thing was bullshit, or at least the part of being confronted by police, youd think in the "trial of the century" two cops who are trained to make note of incidents like that would have remembered a scroungy little couple walking on the beach at 2 am
LouGehrig said...
The Ocean Front walk thing was bullshit, or at least the part of being confronted by police
Interesting that it's that part in particular you'd note as being bullshit.
youd think in the "trial of the century" two cops who are trained to make note of incidents like that would have remembered a scroungy little couple walking on the beach at 2 am
During summer in the Hippy era ? More than 6 months after the event ? I wouldn't be surprised if the two cops, whoever they may have been, didn't even "see" the scroungy little couple. I wouldn't be surprised if they were literally just a couple of long hairs near the beach, of which there was nothing unusual in LA in 1969. They were probably like Black people or old people or little kids to many others ~ you see them but you don't "see" them, rather like Rudy Weber of hose fame {cough, cough} didn't see the faces of the perps when he confronted them but formed impressions of them. But he'd possibly recall the incident; two cops who see thousands of people over many months in many similar scenarios by daylight and in the dead of night might not ~ if of course they could be found !
Then why did Linda recall being stopped and questioned by police? Another one of her lies?
Use some common sense, Charlie supposedly sends 4 of his troops out to kill and hes worried about the driver of the car having a valid drivers license but not the fact that the car looked like something straight out of the mid 50s with 4 people who likely smelled of horse manure carrying 43 feet of rope, bolt cutters, bundled up changes of clothes, a gun that looked like it last went up against Chuck Connors on The Rifleman and 3 buck knives lol
Grim said: "During summer in the Hippy era ? More than 6 months after the event ? I wouldn't be surprised if the two cops, whoever they may have been, didn't even "see" the scroungy little couple."
Actually Grim (but I don't want to go find the evidence right now) back then cops carried little notebooks and logged pretty much everything they did so they could fill out a bunch of forms at the end of the shift. Yes, they might have blown off that encounter but there would be a very clear record of which cop was in in the general vicinity, either by a written record of radio calls or their logs.
It should have been pretty easy to find out who was in the vicinity on that date and time. Go to the precinct and ask to look at the logs.
Grim said: "That would mean that in his wonderful tome to the world he was deliberately lying.
It also makes one wonder why Manson, desiring someone with a licence that wouldn't call attention, would send someone with a licence that would do exactly that, if stopped."
You assume the official narrative is correct: she actually had a license. Nothing corroborates that she did. No one challenged it. And 'yes', per your earlier point "the validity of the licence is implicit in its mentioning".
I'd love to see proof she had one, valid or otherwise but it is more likely she did not. You see, unlike others who yell about a frame up, I would love to see that justice was served and she testified truthfully to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I just keep seeing knives on the front seat with no explanation how they got there.
Gotta be out now for awhile.
Does it matter or not if she had a valid license- the plates on the car were stolen/taken from another car. Not knowing how the police radio and running license plates/ a license went back then, I would think that a quick call about the car and running the plates would really negate anything concerning a valid license.
Thankz Mucho Debbs for the Info on the U.S. File & Licence Numbers. Makes scence to me now Thank U !!
David- the drivers license information you’re presenting makes several assumptions-
Did Charlie assume the license to be valid? Did Bugs, Linda, the defense, the judge all assume the license to be valid too? My guess would be yes to all of them otherwise it would have come up during all of the license testimony. If ANY of them believed differently, it would have cast doubt on Linda’s believability as well as Bugs and that’s one hell of a gaff for a prosecutor to make- to be seen as a liar in front of the judge and jury. Especially a prosecutor who is trying to move up the political ladder.
In terms of license plates or license itself being valid and the likelihood of being arrested had they been pulled over- I’ve been pulled over with an expired license and was let go. My registration was also expired and so was my inspection. I don’t think that any traffic cop would think a car full of hippie kids were on their way to slaughter a house full of establishment pigs just because the license and plates are not valid.
Rope, knives, clothing- they live on a rural horse ranch. It can all be easily explained.
I hope youre the cop who questions me if i ever rob a bank, "the ski mask? Oh well im being stalked by an ex....the duffel bag full of money? Oh shucks thats easy to explain, i was at my gym earlier and i must have grabbed the wrong bag, silly me, ill return it as soon as i can officer" lol
AstroCreep said:
In terms of license plates or license itself being valid and the likelihood of being arrested had they been pulled over- I’ve been pulled over with an expired license and was let go. My registration was also expired and so was my inspection. I don’t think that any traffic cop would think a car full of hippie kids were on their way to slaughter a house full of establishment pigs just because the license and plates are not valid.
---Maybe on the first night there would be a pass- I cannot say what the mood was in LA at that time toward hippie slippies but being that a slaughter took place the night before, I would hope that the wrong plates on the car would mean something.
No, it makes absolutely no difference whatsover if she had a valid licence and the suggestion that it does is ridiculous, these are 4 KILLERS heading out to KILL PEOPLE, nobody gave a shit about drivers licenses at the ranch
One interesting aside that ive always wondered about this case is where were any cops patrolling around? This is Bel Air past midnight, dont these rich people and stars have enough influence with city hall to have cops on patrol?
Anybody else feeling deja vu all over again?
Matt said...
Anybody else feeling deja vu all over again?
You mean the newbie with the unmistakable {and evidently undisguisable} style on his 4th ID ? His cloak of invisibility has a tear in it and isn't working !
LouGehrig said...
it makes absolutely no difference whatsover if she had a valid licence and the suggestion that it does is ridiculous, these are 4 KILLERS heading out to KILL PEOPLE, nobody gave a shit about drivers licenses at the ranch
There are aspects of the licence thing that don't exactly add up, such as if Charlie had Linda get her licence, why did he not have her driving on the first night ? He obviously saw Tex leave the ranch in the driving seat. But I balance that again with his paranoia ~ he'd received a ticket just the day before in or around San Diego for not having a valid licence.
David said...
You assume the official narrative is correct
You'll have to help me out here, which official narrative ? Linda's, the perp's, Bugliosi's or the nebulous one that is often mentioned but rarely clarified ?
I'm kidding, I'm kidding ! 😄
she actually had a license. Nothing corroborates that she did. No one challenged it
Evidentially you are absolutely on the money. And the fact that no one challenged it is, for me at least, worth examining. The defence were trying to obviously inject some doubt, what with Fitzgerald actually asking Linda what name was on her licence. There were some awkward questions about her inability to see Bobby at the jail {although she seems to have had no trouble getting into the women's jail where she learned Mary & Sandy were 'out'}. Nobody challenging the validity of the licence isn't proof of the absence of one. But it is pretty risky to take a chance that no one is going to demand to see the licence. Bugliosi uses that licence as part of his attack; therefore it's fair game to shoot it down. If he simply assumed she had a valid licence but did not know for certain, then what he did was irresponsible. If he knew she did not have one, then what he did was blatantly dishonest. They're both possibilities. So, of course, is that the licence was valid.
Incidentally, do we know for sure which state actually issued her with her licence ? Is NH an assumption or do we have that as verified ?
You're right, I do assume she was speaking the truth about the licence. I have no evidence either way that she did not have one.
LouGehrig said...
One interesting aside that ive always wondered about this case is where were any cops patrolling around? This is Bel Air past midnight, dont these rich people and stars have enough influence with city hall to have cops on patrol?
Excellent question. I wonder where exactly the local patrol officers were at the time of the killing.
Years ago I was in a high rise in West LA, a block from the border with Beverly Hills. I watched as a homeless guy pushed his shopping cart over the city limits. He got a half a block before a Beverly Hills cruiser pulled up next to him. Oh yeah, in the rich areas you get what you pay for in the way of police protection.
Exactly and i point that question more toward Charlie going back later which i believe happened, this would have been 3 am at the earliest, driving that beat up jalopy on a street going up a canyon like Cielo, where are the patrollong cops ESPECIALLY after all the complaints of noise coming from the Cielo property
If a random person tells you they have a drivers license do you say "i dont believe you, let me see it" of do you just nod your head and say "ok"?
LouGehrig said...
If a random person tells you they have a drivers license do you say "i dont believe you, let me see it" of do you just nod your head and say "ok"?
It depends on who the random person is. Linda Kasabian wasn't a random person.
While questioning Johnny Swartz, Bugliosi did pretty much what you question. He asked him if he had the pink slip to his car that they took the licence plate from to put on the Ford and Johnny said yeah. So Bugliosi asked him if he could produce it. There and then ! As it turns out, he could and he did.
where are the patrollong cops ESPECIALLY after all the complaints of noise coming from the Cielo property
What complaints of noise coming from the Cielo property before the bodies were found ?
starviego said...
I wonder where exactly the local patrol officers were at the time of the killing
Maybe they were elsewhere, Star. You make it sound like the area had more patrolling cops than residents that lived there. And doing 24/7s on every street.
People die horribly even in wealthy, well patroled parts of town, your homeless guy, notwithstanding.
dave1971 AKA susanatkinsgonorrhea AKA rudywebershose AKA Lou Gehrig (Lou Gehrig ????) wrote :
Exactly and i point that question more toward Charlie going back later which i believe happened, this would have been 3 am at the earliest, driving that beat up jalopy on a street going up a canyon like Cielo, where are the patrollong [sic] cops ESPECIALLY after all the complaints of noise coming from the Cielo property
That is precisely the reason a wily ex-con like Manson DIDN'T return to the Cielo crime scene that night.
Gorodish said...
dave1971 AKA susanatkinsgonorrhea AKA rudywebershose AKA Lou Gehrig (Lou Gehrig ????)
Sure he did, his curiosity got the best of him, he told Nuell Emmons the same way id have done it if i were him, since you can see the Cielo property up on the hill from Benedict Canyon Dr he drove by once to make sure there were nl cops up there and when he saw there wasnt he went up and thats who the Carlos Gill kid heard arguing at 4 am
The Kotts, Tim Ireland, Emmett Steele, Marcel Mountaine, Mr Bullington, Carlos Gill
(Cough cough) lol
Matt.....hahaha good one !!!
dave1971 AKA susanatkinsgonorrhea AKA rudywebershose AKA Lou Gehrig wrote (italics are mine):
he told Nuell Emmons the same way id have done it if i were him, since you can see the Cielo property up on the hill from Benedict Canyon Dr....
Your hero worship bled through on that one. That may be your scariest comment yet......
(And that's all from me feeding this troll......)
LouGehrig said...
The Kotts, Tim Ireland, Emmett Steele, Marcel Mountaine, Mr Bullington, Carlos Gill
None of them complained about sounds coming from Cielo before the bodies were found. None of them complained about noise from Cielo.
The last four didn't even hear sounds in the rough time range.
LouGehrig said...
Then why did Linda recall being stopped and questioned by police? Another one of her lies?
If it did actually happen, she'd be more likely to recall it. The night someone orders you to commit murder, in fact, right around the time they do, you run into two cops. That's the kind of irony most could appreciate !
What are you smoking? Read the homicide report, they all heard either gunshots, screams, pleading or arguing from the direction of the property, of course they cant say it was the EXACT location of 10050 but where else were gunshots and screams reported in Beverly Hills that night?
And thats why ive always argued that the "timeline" put forward by Bugliosi is wrong and that things happened LATER than have been put forward by him, the only person Vince is relying on is Weber for the supposed 1 am hose incident which is so easily refuted by any defense, even if he had looked at his clock Weber is an old man being woken up during the night at a time he is by habit in bed and sleeping, he was more than likely off by at least a half hour and actually more like an hour
In Sgt Hulkas words "lighten up Frances", number one im not a Manson worshipper, he was a mentally ill piece of shit criminal but he killed no one, are you suggesting that all the homicide investigators who "put themselves in the shoes of the killer" trying to figure out what happened during a crime are scary people who "hero worship" the killers theyre chasing? What we do on this blog and others is try to understand the TLB crimes and reconstruct them in order to bring an understandable motive or motives as to why these things happened
I have to admit i dont recall exactly made the claim of being questioned by police on the beach so ill have to go back and figure out where it was, for some reason i want to say it was Ed Sanders so ill check out his book first
Not to mention that Weber is recalling the event months after it happened, most 25 year olds couldbt remember an exact time being woken up by people making noise outside after being asleep for hours months after it happened let alone a 65 year old
David said...
It should have been pretty easy to find out who was in the vicinity on that date and time. Go to the precinct and ask to look at the logs
That's what Bugliosi thought.
I would love to see that justice was served and she testified truthfully to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Well, if what she declared to the world back in 2009 about getting into Steve Parent's car is true, we know she didn't do that.
CATSCRADLE77 said...
Does it matter or not if she had a valid license
In a way it doesn't but in a way it does. Her credibility is at least partly based on her openness and honesty of her wayward life and some of her distasteful actions, even where it may be costly to her. If she had said that Charlie told her to get her licence, even though it was invalid at the time, then that's more points on the credibility scale. It shows her being open to the max. You can see by the way any little Linda discrepancy is pounced on that in reality, she couldn't really afford to not be anything other than open to the max because if she can be seen to be dodgy in "smaller" aspects, then what was to stop her being so in weightier matters ? That's how even a lame defence would play it.
One could, I suppose, argue that Charlie thought her licence to be valid so even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. He thought it was so that still helps Bugliosi's case; she's still selected for reasons that make her kind of separate. It's not her fault he didn't check. One could also use that line of argument in further defence of Linda ~ it's not her fault if Bugliosi didn't check whether her licence was valid. At this point in time, I don't believe he went with it blind. He was meticulous on things like that, digging up Manson's San Diego ticket to blast any chance of an alibi of him not being in the area, having John Swartz produce his pink slip for the car that they took the licence plates from to put on the Ford. He also knew that Kanarek was the kind of guy that could stretch trials to absurd lengths with his rococo methodology. He would dig for anything. Like finding June Emmers. And if Bugliosi didn't go with it blind, would he check and finding the thing to be invalid, proceed in the hope no one would make an issue of it ? Sure, I'm not a lawyer but I come from a legal family and you're going to have an interesting time convincing me that in a trial of such magnitude a lawyer would take such a risk.
The funny thing is that whether she had a licence that was valid or not, I don't think it would have made a difference to what she testified to. Would the jury have found her unbelievable just because she said her licence wasn't valid ? It's hardly the crime of the century. But it makes a difference if it's presented one way when in fact it's the other.
LouGehrig said...
Use some common sense
Hey, I rumbled you on May 4th, mate. Lou Gehrig indeed !
@LouG - Personal experience has led me to be pretty OCD about a driver having a valid license and/or, being alert and/or sober enough to drive - so, I ask to see the license and/or confiscate their keys (as required). But I'm sure that I am in tbe minority.
A high school friend wanted to impress and, come across as "cool" and drove myself and my gf and another girl up a mountain to a university party. He misjudged a corner and we rolled 3x
My gf died in my arms.
My school friends are all like I am now...so, you can't generalize...it's soooo case specific
First of all im sorry to hear about your girlfriend, that must have been a horrible experience, but i think at least a far as the aged 17 to 25 crowd goes id have to say the vast majority care whether whos driving back and forth to parties, bars, etc has a valid drivers licence much less actually ASK to see one
Typo, it should say "the vast majority DON'T care
@LouAtkinsSyphliticHose
In the words of Ellsworth "Babe" Dahlgren. Relax Lou. Anytime you want 1st base back...the job's yours
Like i said i think most of us are trying figure out this big 50 year old game of Clue, as soon as you think youve got all the answers thats when they change the questions
I agree with you about a majority but we need to make room for minority actions and/or core beliefs. Do I think anybody who was involved with the 2 nights in question gave a toss about being law abiding citizens or, ensuring that they had a safe ride to/from...not a chance...but had they been pulled over, hit another vehicle, been hit, or gone pear shaped in ANY way and, they had to deal with people in a different mindset from theirs...they would've been royally fucked
I agree with them being fucked, if they hadnt been hauled in that night theyd assuredly track down Schwarzs car the next day after the murders had been discovered which could possibly saved the Labiancas and Shorty
I forgot an important point when relaying the accident story...Lars (driver) was stone sober. However, he had failed his road test and, had no DL
LouGehrig said...
What are you smoking?
Your arguments.
Read the homicide report, they all heard either gunshots, screams, pleading or arguing from the direction of the property, of course they cant say it was the EXACT location of 10050 but where else were gunshots and screams reported in Beverly Hills that night?
Steele didn't even hear the shots, just his dogs barking.
Marceau Mounton heard what he thought were 3 backfires then decided they were shots. He did not know what direction they came from.
Robert Bullington heard "what he believed to be" 3 gunshots. What's interesting about Mounton and Bullington is that they were part of a private Bel Air patrol and they were both parked up, which answers your question, at least in part, about where patrolmen were. But the really interesting part is that they both reported the sounds they heard to the same guy, Eric Karlson. The times they heard stuff are way apart, Mounton at 03.30, Bullington made his call almost as soon as he heard the sounds and was logged at 04.11. Not even close.
As for Carlos Gill, he heard sounds coming from the direction of Cielo but quarter to half a mile away. At around 4am. Why didn't he hear any gunshots ?
To be honest, all of the people you mention mash up your argument there and then. Tim Ireland's time was logged by his supervisor. Mrs Kott's is an estimate. And by mentioning that wide span of times and trying to make a case utilizing them as proof, you then do exactly what you've done which is to start moving Weber's time and trying to argue that he was one heartbeat away from senility.
the only person Vince is relying on is Weber for the supposed 1 am hose incident
Not true at all. In fact, VB ties together times from Garretson, Ireland/Sparks and Weber to produce something at least coherent and logical, if not exactly up to the minute action.
Not to mention that Weber is recalling the event months after it happened, most 25 year olds couldbt remember an exact time being woken up by people making noise outside after being asleep for hours months after it happened let alone a 65 year old
Yet despite a couple of months later throwing away the licence number he wrote down, he remembered that.
he was more than likely off by at least a half hour and actually more like an hour
Even if that were true, the Cielo police report times from other people that heard these strange things does not support the case you're trying to construct.
I dont recall exactly made the claim of being questioned by police on the beach so ill have to go back and figure out where it was
It's in "Helter Skelter," part 5.
Steele said his dogs had
different barks for different noises and they barked the way they did at gunshots, as for Bullington how often do cars backfire 3 times in a row ESPECIALLY on a night when there were actual gunshots fired very close by, as for Gill i never said he heard gunshots but arguing which (in mu opinion nothing more) was Charlie either screaming at Tex about the mess or possibly whether to leave Garretson alive again, another possibilty is anger with Linda for not doing anything, in Larry Kings interview with Vsn Houten from 1994 Leslie said Charlie was furious at Linda on night 2 yelling at her almost the entire drive to Waverly
If she was 9 months pregnant, Sharon wouldn't have been up at 3:00 am. They all would have been asleep.
If she was forced by 4 killers she would be
Peter, that doesn't make sense to me, why couldn't they be awake ?
LouGehrig said...
Steele said his dogs had
different barks for different noises
He didn't exactly say that.
as for Bullington how often do cars backfire 3 times in a row ESPECIALLY on a night when there were actual gunshots fired very close by
Dave, that highlights a point I've been making since the very first time I contributed to this site in 2015. Some of the sounds that were heard by different people after 2am were not vastly out of the ordinary in the general scheme of things. They only take on a significance because of what happened that night. And even then, their sigificance was only possible significance because at the time of the report, the cops had nothing to go on and therefore had to include every eventuality. They did not know when the victims died. The ME gave such a wide arc of time that any strange sounds heard had to be considered. Which of those reports of sounds were ever followed up and commented on beyond that initial reoprt ?
as for Gill i never said he heard gunshots but arguing
I know you didn't. I mentioned gunshots specifically in relation to Gill. If he heard loud arguing around 4 and you're trying to corroborate Bullington who heard his stuff just after 4 or Mounton who heard his stuff just after 3.30, would Gill not have heard shots or something that sounded like it ? If he could hear talking up to half a mile away, he would surely hear 3 or 4 loud bangs.
Trying to shoehorn Steele, Mounton, Bullington and Gill into a theory of when the crimes took place is bound to be a loser; for one thing, none of them heard 4 shots. And Ireland can identify actual words that are commensurate with events while Weber can identify the actual perps by corroborating their story.
But the kellers all relate the same story of seeing them awake, reading, sitting on the bed talking. All except the one napping on the sofa. There are like 20 pieces of evidence setting the time and you want to ignore them all in favor or some muddled reports about noises. And if the murders were at 300 am. When did Charlie find the time to go back like you also believe?
Both Weber and Ireland changed their initial story.
Weber's interview can be heard over at Cielodrive.com. He neither mentions looking at his clock nor recalls the time despite prompting.
Ireland initially placed the sounds he heard at about 1:45 (I believe) and subsequently explained his error by saying he spoke to the other chaperone who told him it was 12:45.
Neither is a reliable witness regarding the time. One had his memory assisted by another witness and the other, we don't know how he later remembered looking at his clock.
Bobby said...
Peter, that doesn't make sense to me, why couldn't they be awake ?
It makes no sense to me either. Not least because not every pregnant woman behaves in exactly the same way at exactly the same stage.
If you heard gunshots back then at that time of night you wouldn't go rushing to the door or calling the police. You would wonder what it was, lay still and listen for a minute or two, and then go back to sleep.
Her pregnant ass would be tired. They weren't going ape in that house. They went to an early dinner and then went home and were reading, napping, and chatting.
Peter said: "There are like 20 pieces of evidence setting the time and you want to ignore them all in favor or some muddled reports about noises."
You are correct. The timeline is off by perhaps 30 minutes if at all. Matt (I think) wrote a post on that back there. I tried to trace it in a subsequent post. It is not that far off.
David said...
Neither is a reliable witness regarding the time. One had his memory assisted by another witness
This is true, Ireland basically had no idea of the time. He initially thought it was between 00:30 and 1:00. But his supervisor, Rich Sparks did. He logged the time and it was nowhere close to 2 or 3 or 4am.
That said, Kanarek succeeded in getting Ireland's testimony regarding the time given by Rich Sparks, struck on the grounds of hearsay.
grimtraveller said...
Ireland basically had no idea of the time. He initially thought it was between 00:30 and 1:00
I meant 1:00 and 1:30.
David could have gotten that testimony in using any of a half dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule. :/
Grim said: "He logged the time..."
I don't recall a 'log'. I recall Ireland saying he spoke to Sparks who said.....
Which is hearsay, however, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. First we need to determine if Sparks was an 'unavailable witness' then we........
Exactly, even if Weber looked straight at a clock that said 1 am then went outside to confront the hippies using his hose 1) hes been woken up at age 65 and scared shitless goes to the basement to look for leaks, then he looks outside and sees 4 hippies drinking from his hose, how is he to know what exact time he confronted them at
Splitting a hair here Grim, Mary Brunner was released quickly after her arrest on August 9, 1969 but for some reason they kept Sandra Good in custody for much longer. Really doesn't change anything but I believe I am correct. Maybe I am being slow but is LouGehrig really Star as in Manson's former fiance Star? If so I would really love to hear Star's story.
Re: Sharon being tired - Especially with the brutal heat/nightime humidity/smog scum stickiness
She'd be drained due to the external conditions as well as being very pregnant.
The degree this would bother any one person would definitely vary though
@beauders - did I completely miss something here? LouGehrig is Afton?!?!?
I'm soooooo confused (Vinny Barbarino voice and face)
Adrenaline
Adrenaline would have been on mega overload on all fronts once things began to play out...no doubt about that
Me? For real? I have no idea where Star came into the discussion. Either I completely missed something obvious or, that was an unexpected curveball
RudyWebersHose said:
“Not to mention that Weber is recalling the event months after it happened, most 25 year olds couldbt remember an exact time being woken up by people making noise outside after being asleep for hours months after it happened let alone a 65 year old”
So the fact that he’s 65 means that he can’t have possibly known the right time? He memorized the license plate number as Grim already mentioned. Also, if you read the interview on cielodrive he did with Sgt. Calkins Dec 29th, 1969, he doesn’t sound senile or mentally incapable in any way. He recalls many details as to the encounter and in no way comes off as anything but a credible witness.
I don’t have a clock in my bedroom but when I wake up in the middle of the night/early am, I can tell roughly what time it is based on natural lighting. I couldn’t pinpoint an exact time but generally when I look at my phone and see the actual time, I’m always pretty close.
As previously mentioned, too many other pieces of information set the timeline. Rudy’s memory only supports it.
LouGehrig said...
even if Weber looked straight at a clock that said 1 am
Yes.....?
then went outside to confront the hippies using his hose hes been woken up at age 65 and scared shitless
If he was scared shitless, then why would he go to confront the "hippies" ?
Anyway, in about 17 years time, you'll be able to tell us how a 65 year old responds to various scenarios ! Some of us will get there somewhat quicker.
David said...
Grim said: "He logged the time..."
I don't recall a 'log'. I recall Ireland saying he spoke to Sparks who said.....
When I said log, it was just a layperson's equivalent of "was able to tell him what time it was."
In saying that, Ireland said that the time Sparks gave him initially was earlier than that.
beauders said...
Mary Brunner was released quickly after her arrest on August 9, 1969 but for some reason they kept Sandra Good in custody for much longer
It was the other way around. After the August 8 arrest, Sandy was out in less than a week whereas Mary stayed until the middle of September.
Maybe I am being slow but is LouGehrig really Star as in Manson's former fiance Star?
Careful. That's mightly offensive to "Lou."
Let's just put it this way. "Lou" has adopted wholesale and with stunning expertise, the style and mannerisms and language of Dave1971/SAG/Rudy Weber's hose. If it's not Dave I applaud "Lou"'s powers of impersonation. If it is, it's fair game to mistake said character for a woman and somewhat ironic, given the sort of things said character said about/to a number of people like Matt, Lynyrd, Mario III and Marliese, to name but a few.
I'd laugh my rocks off if it was Star, though. The tears dripping from my eyes would probably short the keyboard.
There was a stopped clock that someone was trying to sell for sex favors. There use no way it could've been plugged in and let run for15 minutes ( sarcasm)
grimtraveller said...
I'd laugh my rocks off if it was Star, though. The tears dripping from my eyes would probably short the keyboard.
There's nothing funny about mental illness, but I sure am enjoying this...
While I'm sleeping thru this thread it's good to see the Grimster back in good fighting form.
Lol what are the odds that he looks at the clock at exactly 1:00 am and then even remembers months later, to me that little episode sounds like another example of Vinces, "coaching", not askinv him what the time was but statjng it so Rudy has to verify it, "Mr Weber youve said under oath that the people who used the early morning of August 9th were...."
Sorry for the typos im on my phone, it would be great if we could get an edit feature on this blog
I wasnt blaming it solely on his age i only added it to the other factors, ask 10 homicide detectives what their experiences have been with "witnesses" trying to recall things like what time an alarm clock read when they were woken from their sleep, ive seen clips of these little research studies where a group of 15 people are shown a relatively unremarkable looking man, normal height, weight, facial appearance, etc and told that he had just robbed a bank and killed a security guard then asked the people what he looked like, height, weight, build, hair color, color and type of shirt and pants then they bring the guy back in after about an hour break and every single "juror" mistook at least 2 different features about the guy
Form fighting good in back Grimster the see to good its thread this thru sleeping im While
Just watched an interview with Susan Atkins on 60 min Australia
Post a Comment